Hey, we nominated the wrong guy!

[© tweed]

Uh, this guy is no moderate.  He's a far left socialist who could win the White House the only way a socialist could win it - by disquising himself and he can do it.

Don't go around calling him a socialist before you have a voting record!

[Keystone Phil]

How funny. It will be the Senate delegation I dislike the most! Who would have thought?

More than Kerry/Kennedy?

I knew someone would ask that. Yes, I will dislike them more than Kerry/Kennedy.

[© tweed]

I knew someone would ask that. Yes, I will dislike them more than Kerry/Kennedy.

And more than Schumer/Clinton?  lol

[Keystone Phil]

I knew someone would ask that. Yes, I will dislike them more than Kerry/Kennedy.

And more than Schumer/Clinton?  lol

Hehe...YES more than Schumer/Clinton. Durbin is the Senator I dislike the most and Obama will have one of the most liberal voting records (right up their with Kerry, Kennedy, Clinton, Schumer, Feingold, Boxer...)

[© tweed]

Alright then.  I find that hard to believe that Obama is worse than Pol Pot Schumer, from a gOP point of view.

A few more that you need for verify: worse than Feinstein/Boxer?  Worse than Levin/Stabenow?  

[MarkDel]

So you're a fellow Jack Kemp guy like me?

Kemp is my guy.  I like his beliefs a lot.

Too bad that wing of the GOP is nearly dead.

Big tent.  Given a choice between welfare and a shot at the American dream, most will take a shot at the dream.

The GOP used to understand that.  

Vorlon,

So how come two smart "inside guys" like me and you weren't able to help Kemp become President? Why in the HELL didn't he run in 1988??? I met him for the first time in September of 1988 when he came to our district to host a fundraiser for Bush/Quayle, and I asked him over and over again why I was having to support an inferior duo on the ticket instead of putting the right man (Kemp himself) into the White House to continue the Reagan legacy...he would just laugh and smile, and say he was needed elsewhere and could do more good outside the White House...

I never, ever understood why he was not THE MAN of the 1980's and 1990's.

[Keystone Phil]

Alright then.  I find that hard to believe that Obama is worse than Pol Pot Schumer, from a gOP point of view.

A few more that you need for verify: worse than Feinstein/Boxer?  Worse than Levin/Stabenow?  

Tweed, worse than every Dem Senate delegation in the entire United States Senate.

[agcatter]

He sounded like a moderate because he was the keynote speaker and that was the tone he was supposed to present.  That's the image he was supposed to project.  Haven't you guys figured it out?  The whole election boils down to whether or not Kerry and company can fool enough people into letting them get thru the White House door.  It's all a sham - a rather obvious one I'd think.

[© tweed]

Tweed, worse than every Dem Senate delegation in the entire United States Senate.

Okay, okay...

[classical liberal]

He sounded like a moderate because he was the keynote speaker and that was the tone he was supposed to present.  That's the image he was supposed to project.  Haven't you guys figured it out?  The whole election boils down to whether or not Kerry and company can fool enough people into letting them get thru the White House door.  It's all a sham - a rather obvious one I'd think.

It's a sham from both sides though.  It's not just whether Kerry can fool enough people; whoever can fool more people wins.  Neither Kerry nor Bush have substantively positive records.  On Kerry's side mostly because he is as partisan a Dem as one can find in a place like the US Senate, though he has taken some indefensible positions (only 3 that I can't see as politically motivated).  On the Bush side it is mostly because of Karl Rove's obsession with Bush's Cowboy image.  If Rove was not so insecure in the image, he would stop interfereing with the more sensible ideas that Cheney is feeding Bush about foreign policy.

[millwx]

So how come two smart "inside guys" like me and you weren't able to help Kemp become President? Why in the HELL didn't he run in 1988???

Probably because the GOP was no longer interested in doing the right thing.  They're no less a party of special interests than the Dems.  That's not a jab at either you or Vorlon.  In fact, though I'm obviously somewhat left of you two, I think, based on some of the comments I've seen from the two of you, we are very similar in our beliefs.  I liked Kemp and would have easily voted for him... though I'm left of him in a Libertarian sense.  As Vorlon notes, that wing of the party is largely dead.  It's one reason I've abandoned the party.  I was registered Rep until three years ago.  There are only a handful of Reps out there on a national level I could ever see myself voting for.  The Kemp wing (the TRUE conservatives, IMO) is largely dead.

[MarkDel]

So how come two smart "inside guys" like me and you weren't able to help Kemp become President? Why in the HELL didn't he run in 1988???

Probably because the GOP was no longer interested in doing the right thing.  They're no less a party of special interests than the Dems.  That's not a jab at either you or Vorlon.  In fact, though I'm obviously somewhat left of you two, I think, based on some of the comments I've seen from the two of you, we are very similar in our beliefs.  I liked Kemp and would have easily voted for him... though I'm left of him in a Libertarian sense.  As Vorlon notes, that wing of the party is largely dead.  It's one reason I've abandoned the party.  I was registered Rep until three years ago.  There are only a handful of Reps out there on a national level I could ever see myself voting for.  The Kemp wing (the TRUE conservatives, IMO) is largely dead.

Millwx,

While I strongly agree that BOTH parties have become too dominated by their extreme wings, I just don't see the dramatic change since the 1980's that you (and I guess Vorlon) have seen. There has been some difference in RHETORIC, but where are the policy differences???

[PBrunsel]

I have to say Obama is a great speaker. Heck, i'm a conservative Republican I think this guy will make a good Senator after just hearing him speak.

[Wakie]

Obama was great and is certainly a rising star.  In 2012 he'll probably be mentioned as a potential VP candidate and by 2020 as a Presidential candidate.  By that time of course the GOP will be calling him the most liberal Senator and will declare the thought of a Barack Obama Presidency as a potential National Crisis.

[millwx]

While I strongly agree that BOTH parties have become too dominated by their extreme wings, I just don't see the dramatic change since the 1980's that you (and I guess Vorlon) have seen. There has been some difference in RHETORIC, but where are the policy differences???

Very true.  The real change has been more since about 1970.  BUT, what I DO think we saw in the 1980s is more of those old time GOPers hanging on.  And while Reagan wasn't entirely or truly in that mold (too socially right-wing), he was close enough to appeal to those traditional GOPers.  So, they hung around.  I think the end of the Reagan years was like a vacuum to those old GOPers, and they largely faded away.

I will say, however, that that's largely conjecture... mainly because I agree with you  ...the real shift wasn't in the 1980s; we didn't see some huge, driving change then which sent the Kemp-wing out the window by the late 80s and early 90s.  So, I admit, I'm reaching for a reason.  But that's what I see.

[The Duke]

Two things.  First, I thought Obama hit the tones that the house wanted to hear, and it exploded.  However, his rhetoric and policy are both dovish and protectionist.  I have seen many good speakers who did not translate that into votes (Jesse Jackson).  Illinois will give us left wing Senators for a long time, and so Obama will be a Senator for a long time.  However, I don't think he appealed to centrists or independents.  He's an extremist with a lot of dirt.

On Jack Kemp.  Let me just remind people that this guy took the soft line on Saddam (http://www.townhall.com/columnists/jackkemp/jk20011205.shtml).  He is a total ideologue for the business community who marsquaraded as an outreach candidate.

[MarkDel]

Two things.  First, I thought Obama hit the tones that the house wanted to hear, and it exploded.  However, his rhetoric and policy are both dovish and protectionist.  I have seen many good speakers who did not translate that into votes (Jesse Jackson).  Illinois will give us left wing Senators for a long time, and so Obama will be a Senator for a long time.  However, I don't think he appealed to centrists or independents.  He's an extremist with a lot of dirt.

On Jack Kemp.  Let me just remind people that this guy took the soft line on Saddam (http://www.townhall.com/columnists/jackkemp/jk20011205.shtml).  He is a total ideologue for the business community who marsquaraded as an outreach candidate.

John,

Well, to some extent, Kemp was just sounding the same "state department rhetoric" that caused the first George Bush to reach the conclusion that toppling Saddam would create an unstable power vacuum in Iraq. To be quite honest, I myself took that position back in 1991...and I was wrong, just as Kemp was wrong in 2001...and he has pretty much admitted that in the last couple years. He is now a strong supporter of the War in Iraq and the overall War on Terror.

You're too young to remember this, but ALL of us who grew up in the Cold War era were incredibly over-cautious when it came to the use of force in foreign policy...it was the nature of our upbringing, and Kemp was very guilty of this as well...that's what made Ronald Reagan such an absolute visionary...just as George W. Bush was when he declared the Bush Doctrine and the Doctrine of Pre-Emption.

[The Duke]

Mark,

I think ou're mostly right.  My views on war and the views of my generation have been shaped more by the 1991 Gulf War and how easy it seemed than Vietnam, which past generations were more influenced by.  I might have been to hard on Kemp, given that we are all very affected by the events that happen early in our socialization.

[Starbucks Union Thug HokeyPuck]

I tend to think Harold Ford has a better shot at becoming the first black president, as he is a moderate.  I doubt Obama's voting record in the senate will prove to be moderate at all.

I would have agreed with you on Harold Ford until about 10 days ago, but I heard him on the Bill O'Reilly show, and he has turned WAYYYYYYYYYY to the left of where he was just two years ago. If Obama is well to the left in practice, then he's not the threat I perceive him to be. BUT....the rhetoric he used tonight was not left or right....it was AMERICAN, and that's something I have not heard from the Democratic Party in a LONG, LONG time.

Society naturally becomes more "liberal" (the 1920s was considered ultra-liberal for its time, but they were still 10x more conserative thcurrent moderates are).  All these "crazy left-wingers" aren't go to sound so crazy when my generation takes power.  Both Ford and Obama has good futures ahead of them.  How about them on the same ticket?  Better yet, Edwards picks one of them in 2008 (Kerry loses) or 2012 (Kerry wins)

And yes, Obama is the man.  

[opebo]

Kerry can be elected president, Obama cannot.

[MarkDel]

I tend to think Harold Ford has a better shot at becoming the first black president, as he is a moderate.  I doubt Obama's voting record in the senate will prove to be moderate at all.

I would have agreed with you on Harold Ford until about 10 days ago, but I heard him on the Bill O'Reilly show, and he has turned WAYYYYYYYYYY to the left of where he was just two years ago. If Obama is well to the left in practice, then he's not the threat I perceive him to be. BUT....the rhetoric he used tonight was not left or right....it was AMERICAN, and that's something I have not heard from the Democratic Party in a LONG, LONG time.

Society naturally becomes more "liberal" (the 1920s was considered ultra-liberal for its time, but they were still 10x more conserative thcurrent moderates are).  All these "crazy left-wingers" aren't go to sound so crazy when my generation takes power.  Both Ford and Obama has good futures ahead of them.  How about them on the same ticket?  Better yet, Edwards picks one of them in 2008 (Kerry loses) or 2012 (Kerry wins)

And yes, Obama is the man.  

Socety naturally becomes more liberal??? Were the 1940's more liberal than the 1940's? NO. Were the 1980's more liberal than the 1970's? NO.

[Starbucks Union Thug HokeyPuck]

I tend to think Harold Ford has a better shot at becoming the first black president, as he is a moderate.  I doubt Obama's voting record in the senate will prove to be moderate at all.

I would have agreed with you on Harold Ford until about 10 days ago, but I heard him on the Bill O'Reilly show, and he has turned WAYYYYYYYYYY to the left of where he was just two years ago. If Obama is well to the left in practice, then he's not the threat I perceive him to be. BUT....the rhetoric he used tonight was not left or right....it was AMERICAN, and that's something I have not heard from the Democratic Party in a LONG, LONG time.

Society naturally becomes more "liberal" (the 1920s was considered ultra-liberal for its time, but they were still 10x more conserative thcurrent moderates are).  All these "crazy left-wingers" aren't go to sound so crazy when my generation takes power.  Both Ford and Obama has good futures ahead of them.  How about them on the same ticket?  Better yet, Edwards picks one of them in 2008 (Kerry loses) or 2012 (Kerry wins)

And yes, Obama is the man.  

Socety naturally becomes more liberal??? Were the 1940's more liberal than the 1940's? NO. Were the 1980's more liberal than the 1970's? NO.

You have to look at it on a bigger scale than that.  Looks what's happened in American culture over past century.  Just look at the clothes people where.  The music we listen to.  Do you think abortion, gay rights, etc. would've been possible 90 years ago, or even 40 years ago.  As we go on, we do become more accepting of different things. That in itself is the definition of liberal, to be more forgiving and to allow more of anything.  I guarentee you, in 30 years, gay marriage will be accepted and legal in almost if not every state in this country....censorship will start to reel back......the idea of a moral standard for everybody will be laughable.  Look at the definition of liberal for once and not in terms of the "evil left wingers" and you will see that is the direction society naturally goes in.  

[Fmr. Gov. NickG]

I tend to think Harold Ford has a better shot at becoming the first black president, as he is a moderate.  I doubt Obama's voting record in the senate will prove to be moderate at all.

I would have agreed with you on Harold Ford until about 10 days ago, but I heard him on the Bill O'Reilly show, and he has turned WAYYYYYYYYYY to the left of where he was just two years ago. If Obama is well to the left in practice, then he's not the threat I perceive him to be. BUT....the rhetoric he used tonight was not left or right....it was AMERICAN, and that's something I have not heard from the Democratic Party in a LONG, LONG time.

Society naturally becomes more "liberal" (the 1920s was considered ultra-liberal for its time, but they were still 10x more conserative thcurrent moderates are).  All these "crazy left-wingers" aren't go to sound so crazy when my generation takes power.  Both Ford and Obama has good futures ahead of them.  How about them on the same ticket?  Better yet, Edwards picks one of them in 2008 (Kerry loses) or 2012 (Kerry wins)

And yes, Obama is the man.  

Socety naturally becomes more liberal??? Were the 1940's more liberal than the 1940's? NO. Were the 1980's more liberal than the 1970's? NO.

Society does naturally become more liberal, at least when it comes to important social issues.  The 1950's were much more liberal than the 1940's when it came to racial equality.  The 1980's were much more liberal than the 1970's when it came to abortion, women's rights, and gay rights.  The economic issues go back and forth, but on social issues, liberals are always making permanent progress.

It's the reason I'm mostly concerned about economic issues...I see the social progress of our country as inevitable.

[Keystone Phil]

I tend to think Harold Ford has a better shot at becoming the first black president, as he is a moderate.  I doubt Obama's voting record in the senate will prove to be moderate at all.

I would have agreed with you on Harold Ford until about 10 days ago, but I heard him on the Bill O'Reilly show, and he has turned WAYYYYYYYYYY to the left of where he was just two years ago. If Obama is well to the left in practice, then he's not the threat I perceive him to be. BUT....the rhetoric he used tonight was not left or right....it was AMERICAN, and that's something I have not heard from the Democratic Party in a LONG, LONG time.

Society naturally becomes more "liberal" (the 1920s was considered ultra-liberal for its time, but they were still 10x more conserative thcurrent moderates are).  All these "crazy left-wingers" aren't go to sound so crazy when my generation takes power.  Both Ford and Obama has good futures ahead of them.  How about them on the same ticket?  Better yet, Edwards picks one of them in 2008 (Kerry loses) or 2012 (Kerry wins)

And yes, Obama is the man.  

Socety naturally becomes more liberal??? Were the 1940's more liberal than the 1940's? NO. Were the 1980's more liberal than the 1970's? NO.

You have to look at it on a bigger scale than that.  Looks what's happened in American culture over past century.  Just look at the clothes people where.  The music we listen to.  Do you think abortion, gay rights, etc. would've been possible 90 years ago, or even 40 years ago.  As we go on, we do become more accepting of different things. That in itself is the definition of liberal, to be more forgiving and to allow more of anything.  

Actually it seems that more and more Americans are becoming pro life. So when it comes to abortion, a good portion of Americans seem less tolerant, not more.

[MarkDel]

I tend to think Harold Ford has a better shot at becoming the first black president, as he is a moderate.  I doubt Obama's voting record in the senate will prove to be moderate at all.

I would have agreed with you on Harold Ford until about 10 days ago, but I heard him on the Bill O'Reilly show, and he has turned WAYYYYYYYYYY to the left of where he was just two years ago. If Obama is well to the left in practice, then he's not the threat I perceive him to be. BUT....the rhetoric he used tonight was not left or right....it was AMERICAN, and that's something I have not heard from the Democratic Party in a LONG, LONG time.

Society naturally becomes more "liberal" (the 1920s was considered ultra-liberal for its time, but they were still 10x more conserative thcurrent moderates are).  All these "crazy left-wingers" aren't go to sound so crazy when my generation takes power.  Both Ford and Obama has good futures ahead of them.  How about them on the same ticket?  Better yet, Edwards picks one of them in 2008 (Kerry loses) or 2012 (Kerry wins)

And yes, Obama is the man.  

Socety naturally becomes more liberal??? Were the 1940's more liberal than the 1940's? NO. Were the 1980's more liberal than the 1970's? NO.

Society does naturally become more liberal, at least when it comes to important social issues.  The 1950's were much more liberal than the 1940's when it came to racial equality.  The 1980's were much more liberal than the 1970's when it came to abortion, women's rights, and gay rights.  The economic issues go back and forth, but on social issues, liberals are always making permanent progress.

It's the reason I'm mostly concerned about economic issues...I see the social progress of our country as inevitable.

If you guys are talking about STRICTLY social issues, then you are correct to some extent, but not always. If you mean "more liberal" in terms of Economic or Foreign Policy issues then you are absolutely wrong.